Fitz says kick Muslims out of Europe

Dhimmi Watch: Study the threats, and the response to them

“Hugh Fitzgerald”, the person Robert Spencer calls on (or pretends to be, as some suspect) when he wants to publish an intellectual-sounding article, calls on countries in Europe to follow the example of Benes and Masaryk in Czechoslovakia and expel the Muslims. This is in response to a claim by “Appa”, a Dutch Moroccan rapper, that if he got his hands on the bigoted politician Geert Wilders then Wilders would “be his”, i.e. he’d harm him (although he didn’t actually say he would kill him, as Fitz alleges):

Appa, who says he represents a large group of Muslims youth in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, says in De Pers: “If I ever meet Wilders, he’s mine. I swear to you, I’ll take him on. And there are more people who feel the same way. People shouldn’t be surprised if a Mohammed C. [i.e. a successor to Mohammad B, or Bouyeri, who killed Theo Van Gogh] springs up soon. If someone were to put a bullet in his head, I wouldn’t mind.”

Fitzgerald accuses the Muslim minority in the Netherlands of causing “a situation for the indigenous Dutch (and of course for other, but non-Muslim immigrants, such as Vietnamese Buddhists, Hindus from India and even Indonesia, and Chinese of Confucian or Christian or other persuasion) that is far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous than it would be without that quite unwelcome, quite unnecessary, and deeply dangerous Muslim presence” and of regarding themselves as being behind enemy lines, without giving any references for how many really are followers of people who preach such ideas. He claims that the Dutch have allowed this situation to develop through “their easygoing tolerance”, and calls on them to “realise” that Western tolerance “does not include tolerating those who cling tenaciously to a doubly totalitarian Belief System, that offers a Complete Regulation of Life, and a geopolitical plan that justifies, by any instruments available and effective (and not merely qitaal, or combat, or its variant “terrorism”), the removal of all obstacles to the spread and dominance of Islam everywhere, and everywhere a situation where Muslims rule”. (I wonder how pleasant and safe their famous tolerance of drugs and prostitution really makes life for local people.)

People interviewed by Ziauddin Sardar in the New Statesman in late 2005, after the riots in several cities in Europe that autumn, saw things differently. He met Muslims who found that the majority population did not treat them with respect and dignity, including a female cabbie with a Moroccan boyfriend who nonetheless claimed that most Moroccans were criminals. Fitz, of course, does not bother to distinguish between religious Muslims and people of minimal attachment to Islam who are delinquents of the sort found in ghettoes the world over. Religious Muslim men, for one thing, have wives, not girlfriends.

His comparison of the Muslim minority with the Germans in Czechoslovakia is a false one. The Germans in Czechoslovakia, who lived in regions adjacent to Germany and Austria (and Germany, at that time, also included what is now south-western Poland, meaning that northern, western and southern Bohemia were predominantly German), were the remnant of past German and Austrian rule, which had been allowed to stay even in the inter-war period, had been instrumental in surrendering first their part, then the whole, of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany, and had participated heavily in Nazi rule of the former Czechoslovakia after that. They had thus proven themselves to be a threat, by much more than just one murder of a notorious hatemonger and a few rucksack bombs. Fitzgerald says that nobody then or since has asserted that the transfer was immoral, which may partly be because the situation was totally and utterly different to that of the Muslims in Europe, but also because Czechoslovakia shortly afterwards surrendered itself to Russian domination, which would have made return to the country unattractive to any deported German.

He ends by comparing the “prostrate” Germany of 1946 with the supposedly strong Muslim world of today, strong “thanks to that ten trillion dollars in OPEC money received since 1973, along with all the aid, a disguised Jizyah, that is received, almost as tribute, by Muslim states and nascent statelets that have no oil or gas, but are able to count on the foreign aid that the Infidels provide”. I can think of no recently established “nascent statelet” which is predominantly Muslim - what is he talking about? Western states buy oil from the Arabs because they need it; the western consumer lifestyle could not exist at the moment without it, and most of it is under Muslims’ soil. If Fitz thinks aid is “disguised jizyah”, perhaps he could provide a breakdown of how much of it actually goes to the Muslim world?

I don’t normally comment on the drivel Spencer and “Hugh Fitzgerald” publish; I mention this one because CAIR noticed it and mentioned it in their email circular. In some ways it’s a pretty standard anti-Muslim hate screed, with such distinguishing features as not distinguishing between delinquents and Islamic fundamentalists there as usual, but the leap of subject matter - from a possible death threat by a rapper to a politician to kicking an entire population out - seems extraordinary even for them. Or perhaps it’s not.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share

You may also like...